The use of the ASCA National Model[R] in supervision.

This study investigated the types of supervisory activities provided to school counselor trainees. The researchers examined the responses of 73 practicing school counselors from the Southern region who were members of the American School Counselor Association. The supervisory activities provided to trainees working in a traditional school counseling program were compared with trainees performing in a developmental program as recommended in the ASCA National Model[R]. The researchers also examined the years of experience as a school counselor, the amount of training received in supervision, differences in supervision at various grade levels, and the principal's understanding of the school counselor's role when working in a traditional or a transformed school counseling model. Implications for school counselors are included.

**********

In this age of educational reform, there is a need to increase academic achievement at all levels and within all programs. The American School Counselor Association (ASCA) endorses a comprehensive, developmental school counseling program as articulated in the ASCA National Model[R], so that school counselors can better assist all students to achieve and negotiate the demands of the 21st century (ASCA, 2005).

Traditional training for school counselors was based on a remedial-reactive approach that emphasized counselor services or functions rather than emphasizing student competencies and outcomes (Akos & Galassi, 2004; Gysbers & Henderson, 2000). Transformed school counseling programs are preventive, developmental, and integrated within the educational mission of the school, and led by school counselors who utilize their many talents and skills (Henderson, 1994), to improve student growth (Mien, 1994; Fields & Manley, 1997).

The professional school counselor, operating in a program reflecting the guidelines of the ASCA National Model, provides advocacy, leadership, collaboration, and systemic change within a framework that includes the program foundation, accountability delivery system, and management system (ASCA, 2005). Initial studies suggest that when students participate in a developmental school counseling program, there is more counselor interaction with program stakeholders (Gysbers, Lapan, & Blair, 1999), students have higher academic achievement, and they are better prepared for the future (Gysbers, 1997).

However, school counselor trainees express frustration when they learn about the benefits of the ASCA framework but receive supervision in a school counseling setting that is not yet fully transformed into a developmental model. For students training for the school counseling profession, classroom perceptions and concepts become a reality when receiving supervision in the clinical experiences that are more commonly known as the practicum and the internship, "the most critical experience elements in the program" (Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs [CACREP], 2001). Professionally appropriate supervision is required by CACREP as an effective way to nurture school counselors' professional development (Henderson, 1994) through site supervisors who serve as role models for the future of the profession (Roberts, Morotti, Herrick, & Tilbury, 2001). Unfortunately, supervision for trainees has been inconsistent across programs, little information is available regarding the supervisory experiences received by school counselor trainees (Roberts et al.), and even less is known regarding the use of the ASCA National Model in supervision.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study was to determine the amount of training that practicing school counselors have received in the ASCA framework for school counseling programs, and whether this training was reflected in the supervision provided to trainees. For the purposes of this study, developmental, comprehensive school counseling programs relate to the ASCA National Model framework. Specifically, the research questions were as follows:

1 .Are the supervisory activities of trainees different when working in schools with a developmental, comprehensive program compared with the supervisory activities of trainees in traditional school counseling programs?

2. Is there a difference in the number of years of experience as a professional school counselor and the use of a developmental school counseling program?

3. What are the specific activities that trainees perform within a transformed school counseling model?

4. Are there differences in the types of supervisory practices provided to trainees based on the grade level and the school counseling program model?

5. Is there a difference in the years of experience as a school counselor and the amount of training in supervision?

6. Does the use of a comprehensive, developmental school counseling model increase the principal's understanding of the school counselor's role?

METHOD

Participants

Funding for this study was obtained through a grant offered by the Southern Association of Counselor Education and Supervision. The School Counselor Supervision Questionnaire was developed by the researchers and piloted by a cadre of practicing professional school counselors throughout the nation. After their recommendations were carefully considered, minor revisions were made to the instrument.

In order to ensure that the sample of school counselors would be representative of all possible practicing school counselors, individuals who were members of the ASCA Southern region were selected through a systematic sample. Individuals who received the questionnaire and were not actively practicing as a school counselor were asked to return the questionnaire. The researchers randomly selected a starting point on the list, and every 10th school counselor on the list was chosen until 200 individuals were identified. A self-addressed, stamped envelope was provided to increase the return rate of the participants. After approximately 3 weeks, a follow up postcard was sent to the participants who had not returned the survey by the date indicated on the original mailing.

Instrument

The School Counselor Supervision Questionnaire consisted of 30 questions divided into three sections: demographics, supervisory experiences, and program development. The demographics section consisted of 11 questions to collect data on gender, highest educational degree obtained, employment, years of experience, teaching credential, years taught, professional experiences, school counselor credential, and training and/or working in a developmental school counseling program. The section on supervisory experiences contained 10 questions developed to gather information on training received by supervisors, time spent supervising trainees, satisfaction with ability to provide supervision, and a series of questions based on the components of the ASCA National Model.

The final portion was composed of nine questions on program development, such as the following: "To what extent do you assist in conducting needs assessments?" "To what extent do you serve as an advocate for students?" In this section, participants rated each question on a 5-point Likert scale: 1 (not at all), 2 (below average), 3 (average), 4 (above average), and 5 (all the time). The researchers analyzed the data using the Honestly Significant Differences Test, an SPSS multiple comparison test.

RESULTS

A total of 73 participants responded to the questionnaire, comprising a 37% return rate. Although this rate was lower than desired, the rate exceeded the 23% rate normally found in psychology and education journals (Edwards et al., 2002). Females made up 93% of the responses. All of the respondents held at least a master's degree (28%). Fifty percent held a master's degree plus additional coursework, 14% had an Ed.S., and 8% had a doctorate. Most of the respondents had been school counselors for 7 or more years (62%), and 69% held a teaching credential. When asked if their school had a comprehensive, developmental counseling program, only 26% reported having one in place. Another 23% responded that they were in the process of implementing a developmental program, and 51% did not have a developmental program.

Although significant differences in program structure were not found at the various grade levels, it was interesting that more high school counselors (48%) reported working in a developmental program than did elementary (12%) and middle school counselors (12%). While the expectation may be that elementary school counselors would be more likely to have comprehensive, developmental programs, it is possible that the lack of significance was due to the small sample size in our study.

Research Question 1

This question investigated the supervisory activities provided to trainees working in traditional school counseling programs in comparison with the activities provided to trainees in developmental counseling programs. The comparisons were based on whether the counselor supervisor identified his or her program as a traditional model or a comprehensive, developmental model. A chi-square test revealed no significant differences in supervisory activities among trainees who received supervision following the components of the ASCA National Model compared to those trainees supervised in a traditional school counselor program--[chi square](4, N = 73) = 9.460, p = .06. However, it is interesting to note that the outcome approached a significant difference, and it may even have been significant with a larger, more diverse sample.

Research Question 2

There were no significant differences between years of experience as a school counselor and the use of a comprehensive, developmental program--[chi square] (2, N = 73) = .967, p = .61. However, individuals who have been school counselors for 6 or less years were significantly more likely to have had a course in the ASCA National Model than were school counselors in the field for 7 or more years--[chi square](1, N = 73) = 4.401, p = .04.

Research Question 3

School counselors also were asked about the supervisory activities they provided to school counselor trainees in reference to the components in the ASCA National Model: the foundation component; the delivery system, which includes the guidance curriculum, individual planning, responsive services, and support system; management; and accountability. Pair-wise comparisons were used to compare the means of these variables and their relationship with the supervisory activities that professional school counselors provide to trainees. A rank order of the means was established. Variables that were labeled with a common letter (A, B, C) were similar, and not significantly different from each other. Variables labeled with different letters were significantly different from each other (see Table 1).

Based upon these ASCA National Model components, responsive services (M = .706, SD =. 160) and accountability (M = .677, SD = .322) were performed significantly more often by trainees than other program components. The foundation component (i.e., assist in writing a mission statement or program rationale, identify competencies related to the three domains of the model) was used the least in supervision (M = .396, SD = .254).

Research Question 4

Pair-wise comparisons were used to measure the same components across grade levels (elementary, middle, and high school); however, the only significant difference among the groups was the individual planning component. High school counselors were significantly more likely than elementary or middle school counselors (p < .02) to provide supervisory activities in this component, which includes services such as advisement, promotion and retention activities, course selection, administering tests, and college planning.

Another significant difference was that elementary counselors reported the guidance curriculum (i.e., group guidance lessons, team-teaching with teachers, educational session with teacher and/or parents) to be one of the training components of the ASCA National Model most frequently provided to counselors-in-training (p < .05).

Many of the other supervisory components (responsive services, support system, accountability, management) were similar in their ranking across grade levels. Among all grade levels, the foundation component (i.e., assist in writing a mission statement or program rationale, identify competencies related to the three domains of the model) was again the least used supervisory activity. See Figure 1 for the differences in their amount of use of each component among elementary, middle, and high school.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Research Question 5

The fifth question focused on the training that practicing school counselors received in supervision compared with the years since receiving their school counselor credential. A 2[yen]3 chi-square matrix was used to compare the three groups (6 years or less, 7 to 10 years, and more than 10 years). No significant differences were found among the ranges in years or types of training (pre-service course, workshop, conference)--[chi square] (2, N= 73) = .39, p = .82. Sixty percent of the participants reported having no training in supervision.

Research Question 6

The final research question related the use of the ASCA developmental program compared with how well the school principal understood the school counselor's role. The participants who reported having a developmental program in place also revealed that the principal was less likely to understand their role as a school counselor. Conversely, those in a traditional school counseling program reported that the principal had a better understanding of their role within the school system. A Tukey test yielded significant differences (p = .05). In other words, the participants' perception was that the principal had a better understanding of the school counselor's role when operating in a traditional school counselor program.

DISCUSSION

In 1997, the ASCA National Standards were developed (Campbell & Dahir, 1997). Four years later, the ASCA governing board voted to incorporate these standards into a national model to provide school counselors with greater direction and support in developing a comprehensive school counseling program (Bowers, Hatch, & Schwallie-Giddis, 2001). From the results of this study, only 26% of the surveyed counselors reported working within a developmental model and another 23% reported being in the process of establishing such a program. Although these numbers may seem discouraging, it must be remembered that only 9 years have passed since the inception of the ASCA National Standards, and only 3 years since the appearance of the ASCA National Model. Furthermore, because transformation to a developmental program may take approximately 6 years (VanZandt & Hayslip, 2001), it is encouraging that 49% of the respondents either are working in a developmental program or are in the process of implementing such a program.

In this study, the various types of supervisory activities received by trainees are similar, regardless of the type of program that trainees were involved in during clinical training. These results are reassuring in that trainees are receiving experience in the various components of the ASCA National Model regardless of program structure. It is possible that the traditional programs would realize even greater results through intentional integration of the program into the curriculum, and collaboratively working with teachers to integrate counseling and course-specific goals (Paisley; 2001).

The supervisory activities encompassed within the individual planning component were more frequently found at the high school level. This result compares with the allocated percentage of time for high school counselors suggested by Gysbers and Henderson (2000) in comparison with the time allocation for elementary and middle school counselors. It would be interesting to determine whether these data would change in the future for trainees in the elementary and middle school levels due to new standards of the No Child Left Behind Act. That legislation required testing in reading and math for all students in Grades 3 through 8 in the 2005-2006 academic year, and science in the 2006-2007 academic year. In addition, supervision in guidance curriculum activities was provided more frequently at the elementary level, which also supports Gysbers and Henderson's suggested allocation of counselor time in comparison with middle and high school counselors.

In this study, counselors who worked within the framework of a developmental school counselor model reported that their principals had little understanding of their program, while counselors operating in a traditional school counselor structure reported principals as having a better understanding of the program. This finding is perplexing because previous studies report more counselor interaction among constituents in a well-developed school counselor program (Gysbers et al., 1999). However, it is possible that because this study reveals a trend in the direction of program transformation, there may be confusion in regard to role and task. It is reasonable that if school counselors are feeling apprehensive and uncertain as they navigate their way through a transformed program, principals also may be struggling with program conceptualization. This uncertainty may persist until a sense of stability is attained that may assist in a greater clarification of responsibilities. Additionally, it could be that the counselors working in a traditional school counselor program performed the tasks expected by their administrator, therefore matching performance to his or her beliefs.

As counselors become more confident with program reform and able to more clearly articulate structure and goals, all stakeholders may have a greater understanding of program philosophy and mission (Sink & Yillik- Downer, 2001). Additionally, communicating the benefits of data-based results that support student achievement also may generate program support because few teacher and administrator pre-service programs require substantive coursework in assessment (McMillan, 2000; Trevisan, 2001).

Limitations

Results provide valuable information concerning the supervisory activities provided to school counselor trainees; however, a major limitation in this study was the regionalized, small sample of participants. The researchers surveyed professional school counselors who were members of ASCA from the Southern region of the United States. However, a more representative sample of counselors from across the United States who are ASCA members would provide more generalizable findings. Furthermore, it would be interesting to compare the program structure of the ASCA members to school counselors who are not members of this professional organization. It could be that the ASCA members are more cognizant of the positive implications of a developmental model than those who are not members.

The focus of this study was to investigate supervisory activities provided to trainees, but future studies could investigate the activities that school counselors themselves are involved in compared to those provided to trainees. It is possible that counselors who are aware of the ASCA National Model and its components provide these activities to the trainees to correspond to the training program requirements but do not engage in these activities themselves.

Two additional areas for further research are the use of a developmental model by grade levels, and the principals' understanding of a comprehensive, developmental program. In this study, it was interesting to note that counselors working at a high school level were more likely to identify the school counseling program as developmental in comparison to elementary and middle school counselors. This result may be due to such things as the small sample size, or inaccurate reporting of program structure due to professional apprehension that the program does not reflect the intention of the ASCA National Model. Future research is needed to study this finding more thoroughly. Furthermore, it would be of interest to identify the reasons that principals were less apt to understand the school counselor's role in a developmental school counseling program compared to that in a traditional model.

Implications for Professional School Counselors

It was of no surprise that the foundation component, which includes the mission, rationale, and related competencies, was the least frequently used training activity. Yet, because these elements are a significant reflection of the program, sharing this component with the trainee can be a powerful training activity.

School counselors need to communicate the positive aspects of a developmental counseling program with program constituents, especially principals. A regularly scheduled meeting with the building principal to explain program planning, implementation, and assessment data may provide support for more complete implementation of the model.

Conclusion

Practicing professional school counselors are pivotal in training individuals to enter the school counseling profession, yet the majority of the respondents from this study indicated that they had not received any training in supervision. Although approximately 50% of the respondents stated that they were still working under a traditional model, approximately 49% either were working in a transformed model or were in the process of making this change. Additional research is needed not only to understand how school counselors learn about supervisory practices, but also to gain knowledge of clinical collaboration practices between counselor education programs and practicing school counselors. As more school counselors become exposed to the benefits of a transformed school counselor program, and provide supervision that reflects the ASCA National Model, it is hoped that these professionals and those whom they train will assume a greater leadership role by advocating for systemic change, collaborating with teachers, and performing tasks for which they have been trained.

This research was supported by a grant from the Southern Association for Counselor Education and Supervision.

References

Akos, P., & Galassi, J. P. (2004).Training school counselors as developmental advocates. Counselor Education & Supervision, 43, 192-206.

Allen, J. M. (1994). School counselors collaborating for student success. Greensboro, NC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Counseling and Student Services. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED377414)

American School Counselor Association. (2005). The ASCA national model: A framework for school counseling programs (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author.

Bowers, J., Hatch,T., & Schwallie-Giddis, R (2001, September/October).The brainstorm. ASCA School Counselor, 42, 17-18.

Campbell, C. A., & Dahir, C. A. (1997). Sharing the vision: The national standards for school counseling programs. Alexandria, VA: American School Counselor Association.

Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2001). 2001 standards. Retrieved October 11, 2004, from http://www.cacrep.org/ 2001 Standards.html

Edwards, P., Roberts, I., Clarke, M., DiGuiseppi, C., Pratap, S., Wentz, R., et al. (2002). Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: Systematic review. British Medical Journal, 324, 1183-1185.

Fields, G., & Manley, P. (1997).The comprehensive guidance program at Cassville, Missouri. In N. C. Gysbers & R Henderson (Eds.), Comprehensive guidance programs that work--II (pp. 75-88). Greensboro, NC: ERIC/CASS Publications.

Gysbers, N. C. (1997). A model comprehensive guidance program. In N. C. Gysbers & P. Henderson (Eds.), Comprehensive guidance programs that work--II (pp. 1-23). Greensboro, NC: ERIC/CASS Publications.

Gysbers, N. C., & Henderson, P. (2000). Developing and managing your guidance program (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Gysbers, N. C., Lapan, R.T., & Blair, M. (1999). Closing in on the statewide implementation of a comprehensive guidance program model. Professional School Counseling, 2, 357-368.

Henderson, P. (1994). Supervision of school counselors. Greensboro, NC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Counseling and Student Services. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED372353)

McMillan, J. H. (2000). Fundamental assessment principles for teachers and school administrators. Proctical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(8). Retrieved September 3, 2005, from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=8

Paisley, P. (2001). Maintaining and enhancing the developmental focus in school counseling programs. Professional School Counseling, 4, 271-277.

Roberts, W. B., Morotti, A. A., Herrick, C., & Tilbury, R. (2001). Site supervisors of professional school counseling interns: Suggested guidelines. Professional School Counseling, 4, 208-215.

Sink, C. A., & Yillik-Downer, A. (2001). School counselors' perceptions of comprehensive guidance and counseling programs: A national study. Professional School Counseling, 4, 278-288.

Trevisan, M. S. (2001). Implementing comprehensive guidance program evaluation support: Lessons learned. Professional School Counseling, 4, 225-228.

VanZandt, Z., & Hayslip, J. (2001). Developing your school counseling program: A handbook for systemic planning. Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.

Jeannine R. Studer, Ed.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychology & Counseling, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. E-mail: jstuder@utk. edu. Aaron Oberman, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of school counseling at the Citadel, Charleston, SC.

Table 1. Use of the ASCA National Model

Variable                Relationship

Responsive services     A
Accountability          A
Support system               B
Management                   B
Guidance curriculum          B
Individual planning          B
Foundation component              C

Note. This table reports a rank order of the variables related to the
ASCA National Model and their use by practicing professional school
counselors in their supervision of counseling students. For example,
responsive services and accountability are ranked with the letter A.
Therefore, school counselors did not report a significant difference
in the use of these variables when training supervisees. However,
accountability (A) and support system (B) are categorized by different
letters and, thus, were significantly different in their use by school
counselors.

P < .05.